Altriaproject.com

The timeline behind altriaproject.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

DECISION Altria Group, Inc. and Altria Group Distribution Company v. Ryan McMorrow / fplenergyproject Claim Number: FA2205001998296 PARTIES Complainants are Altria Group, Inc. and Altria Group Distribution Company (“Complainants”), represented by Thomas E. Zutic of DLA Piper LLP (US), District of Columbia. Respondent is Ryan McMorrow / fplenergyproject (“Respondent”), Florida. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <altriaproject.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainants submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 27, 2022. The Forum received payment on May 27, 2022. On May 28, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <altriaproject.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On June 3, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 23, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@altriaproject.com. Also on June 3, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On June 30, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainants requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainants. Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants In the instant proceedings, there are two Complainants. Altria Group, Inc. is the parent company of Altria Group Distribution Company. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that “[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.” Since Complainants have a parent/subsidiary relationship and each owns a registered trademark ALTRIA, the Panel finds that each can claim to have rights to the domain name listed in the Complaint. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainants Complainants offer tobacco products and related services. Complainants have rights in the ALTRIA mark through registrations of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Respondent’s <altriaproject.com> domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainants’ mark. Complainant Altria Group, Inc. also operates its official Internet website at <www.altria.com>. Respondent has no legitimate interests in the <altriaproject.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainants have not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the ALTRIA mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the domain name redirects to Complainants’ website and is incorporated into a fraudulent email address used in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Respondent registered and is using the <altriaproject.com> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainants’ rights in the ALTRIA mark, in order to engage in fraudulent behaviour by impersonating Altria Group Distribution Company’s employee and sending unauthorized emails to third parties in an attempt to obtain their personal information. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that a complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainants’ undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainants have shown that they each have rights in the ALTRIA mark through registrations of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,029,629 registered by Altria Group, Inc. on December 13, 2005 and Reg. No. 4,815,825 registered Altria Group Distribution Company on September 22, 2015). The Panel finds Respondent’s <altriaproject.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainants’ mark because it incorporates the ALTRIA mark in its entirety and adds the term “project”, which does nothing to distinguish the domain name from the mark, and the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), which may be ignored. Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e. (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The <altriaproject.com> domain name was registered on April 12, 2022. It resolves to Complainants’ genuine website. On May 16, 2022, the domain name was used as an email purporting to be from a Senior Market Manager of Altria Group Distribution Company saying: “Hello, We are looking into making some promotional items purchases with your company. Can you kindly provide us with your credit application so we can take it from there? Thanks” These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the <altriaproject.com> domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The four illustrative circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) are not exclusive. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainants’ ALTRIA mark when Respondent registered the <altriaproject.com> domain name and that Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith for the purpose of obtaining sensitive information by impersonating Complainants’ employee. Complainant has established this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <altriaproject.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant Altria Group, Inc. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: July 2, 2022. Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.